A second piece is the federal
budget, excluding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Again, a morally
sound fix is relatively simple. First, reduce defense spending for wars that
the U.S. will never fight. No nation currently has the ability to challenge
U.S. global military superiority. Spending upwards of $50 billion on a new
fleet of hyper-bombers is an immoral waste of resources. Second, invest in
education. Education helps lift people out of poverty, whether the person is in
Africa or the U.S. Many education initiatives have proven ineffective. Eliminate
those programs. Adopt new initiatives; don’t reduce education spending (cf. Ethical
Musings: Musings about higher education - part 2). Third, eliminate tax
loopholes that benefit special interests at the cost of the public good.

The hard pieces are fixing
Medicare and Medicaid. As I have repeatedly argued, the U.S. healthcare system is
dysfunctional (cf. Ethical
Musings: Healthcare coverage for all and Ethical
Musings: Free markets and healthcare). Part of the answer consists in more
intentionally rationing healthcare (the U.S. now rations healthcare based on
ability to pay). David Brooks sketches the problem with poignancy in his column,
“Death and
Budgets” (New York Times, July 14, 2011). By 2050, the cost of
caring for Alzheimer’s patients alone is projected at $1 trillion annually. Promises
of a cure for cancer have proven elusive in spite of the billions expended.
When is palliative care rather than treatment morally justified? Who, with what
medical conditions and under what circumstances, should have access to the
latest proposed but unproven treatments? How will we as a nation fund
healthcare for people (should the economically advantaged pay for their own
care, the poor fend for themselves, and the middle-class rely on insurance or
does a better approach exist)?

Ayn Rand’s most popular book, Atlas
Shrugged, remains popular. In that novel:

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the
very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic
minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to
the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism)
and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds
much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his
feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government
employees?"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine
economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the
opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as
Barack Obama puts it.

Moore’s sarcasm hides three vital
points. First, he presumes that everybody wants as much income as possible.
That presumption is patently false. Most people are satisficers, more interested
in sufficiency than maximizing income. Eliminating the income tax will cause
few of these people to work more; some may, to the detriment of society, work
less to earn less. Why would people want less income? Because they value time
with family or friends or the freedom to pursue other interests more than they
value money.

Second, Moore ignores the
essential services that government provides. People who want to live in a
nation without reliable government services should relocate from a developed nation
to a third world country that lacks a reliable transport infrastructure,
well-regulated (i.e., reliable, truthful, and safe) businesses, adequate
national defense, etc. The U.S. government for all of its multitudinous faults
provides a remarkable set of services for a bargain basement price when
compared to other developed nations.

Third, fairness is important. People
begin life unfairly. Nobody chooses his or her family of origin; nobody chooses
her or his genes. In other words, the two primary determinants of human
existence – genetics and nurture – are utterly beyond an individual’s control. By
virtue of genetics and nurture, some people are good at producing wealth and
others are not. By virtue of genetics and nurture, people are individually
unique and collectively able to achieve far more than is possible as any single
individual. Rand’s philosophy of individualism is profoundly flawed because she
ignores that reality. Government plays an essential role in helping to level
the playing field (i.e., improving fairness). Equal access to free public
education is integral to this leveling. Income transfers to the elderly, the
ill, and in support of children are also ways in which government levels the
playing field. Taxing the wealthy more than the poor (progressive tax rates)
are fundamental to fairness.

Moore and Rand are both wrong.
In times of crisis, including the current economic struggles, pulling together
as a single community of communities will produce better and greater results
than devolving to individualism.